Grammar check! "I will in future" - "I'll in future" - Why doesn't it work?

RoyMi6 · 12 Oct 2011 at 15:38

I've got a German friend who's English is pretty good.

He came out with an interesting sentence today which was:

"I'll in future" when he meant "I will in future".

Being a complete moron with grammar myself I'm unable to tell him why it doesn't work. I'm also having difficultly finding anything on the net as I don't really know what I'm searching for.

Classic case of dumb leading the blind.

Any help? Why can't/don't we say "I'll in"?

Roy

King Damager · 12 Oct 2011 at 15:39

I'm putting it down to one of those oddities of English Grammar...

kd

Elixir · 12 Oct 2011 at 15:40

RoyMi6 said:
I've got a German friend who's English is pretty good.

He came out with an interesting sentence today which was:

"I'll in future" when he meant "I will in future".

Being a complete moron with grammar myself I'm unable to tell him why it doesn't work. I'm also having difficultly finding anything on the net as I don't really know what I'm searching for.

Classic case of dumb leading the blind.

Any help? Why can't/don't we say "I'll in"?

Roy

Because it's omitting what he will do in future...

I will do that in future.
I'll do that in future.

...are both fine. "I will in future" doesn't really work as a sentence, it has just become commonplace. There will no doubt be a technical term for this which one of the more seasoned grammar nazis will provide.

Jay794 · 12 Oct 2011 at 15:42

As long as you can understand him does it matter?

My cousin is polish and he says some of the funnies things when speaking english

"Have a happy good time"
"Can we's go"
"What would you like do"

to name a few

LeJosh · 12 Oct 2011 at 15:44

Not 100% sure but I think "I'll" has to be followed by a pro-verb to not sound like verbal diarrhea.

Dj_Jestar · 12 Oct 2011 at 15:45

Elixir said:
Because it's omitting what he will do in future...

I will do that in future.
I'll do that in future.

...are both fine. "I will in future" doesn't really work as a sentence, it has just become commonplace. There will no doubt be a technical term for this which one of the more seasoned grammar nazis will provide.

Bingo.

The grammar in the OP is (semantically) incorrect. "I will in future" should be "I will, in future." As Elixir says - the "what" is implied by the context of the conversation; If it were explicit it would not appear wrong.

Linkex · 12 Oct 2011 at 15:46

I think it just comes down to usage. "I'll" is a contraction of "I will" or "I shall", so from a technical perspective, I think its as valid as any other use.

If I had to guess I would say that the reason that "I'll in" isn't in use is because it normally the syntax would be an explanation of the activity before the time frame - You would more likely say "I'll be more careful in future" that "I will in future" - because that second statement would require set up, where the first can stand alone.

Just flailing in the dark mind you, I'm sure a brain will be along shortly to correct me.

FlyingPig · 12 Oct 2011 at 15:55

It's an ellipse (some information is left out but implied), but that doesn't work with contractions, hence why you need to use the full word "will", and yes, also the comma in written language. (this is coming from a non-native speaker)

Whose vs. who's BTW, not that hard...

Maccy · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:09

The sentence needs an active verb to make sense.

FlyingPig said:
It's an ellipse (some information is left out but implied), but that doesn't work with contractions, hence why you need to use the full word "will", and yes, also the comma in written language. (this is coming from a non-native speaker)

Whose vs. who's BTW, not that hard...

You mean ellipsis? If so, that's not what you mean. Ellipsis is the use of '...', I think you mean elision - the use of the apostrophe to omit a letter/letters.

FlyingPig · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:15

Maccy said:
The sentence needs an active verb to make sense.

You mean ellipsis? If so, that's not what you mean. Ellipsis is the use of '...', I think you mean elision - the use of the apostrophe to omit a letter/letters.

Yes, you're right. I didn't realise it's not spelt like that in English. In Dutch it is (ellips), see http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellips_(taalkunde)

I still think ellipsis is the correct name for this phenomenon, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics)

In linguistics, ellipsis (from the Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleipsis, "omission") or elliptical construction refers to the omission from a clause of one or more words that would otherwise be required by the remaining elements

RoyMi6 · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:17

Cheers guys, I'll point him in the direction of this thread as it's better than any answer I've been able to give him

Jay794 - To answer your question to say his English is quite good is an understatement. There's some times when people meet him that they don't know he's German, and he enjoys that - so he's always looking to improve and try things with language.

FlyingPig - I see you noticed my test!

(hides face in shame)

RDM · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:19

FlyingPig said:
I still think ellipsis is the correct name for this phenomenon, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics)

In that definition the key phrase is "one or more words", so if you were to omit words you would use ellipsis, if you were to omit letters you would use an apostrophe.

Dj_Jestar · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:21

RoyMi6 said:
Jay794 - To answer your question to say his English is quite good is an understatement. There's some times when people meet him that they don't know he's German, and he enjoys that - so he's always looking to improve and try things with language.

You can blame the British empire for that

Nearly 3/4 of the globe's population interacted with English speaking tradesmen and so forth, so a lot of people learnt English.

And of course, because nearly 3/4 of the globe's population interacted with English speaking tradesmen, and thus learnt to speak English, we (the English) didn't have need to speak any forrin

*bulldogs*
*salutes*
*Union Flag flapping in background*
*"God Save The Queen" starts to play*
*tear of pride rolls down cheek*

TommyV · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:22

gotta love first world problems lol

FlyingPig · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:22

RDM said:
In that definition the key phrase is "one or more words", so if you were to omit words you would use ellipsis, if you were to omit letters you would use an apostrophe.

Yes, true, but both are used: ellipsis for omission of the words [whatever he was going to do], and indeed the other case of using an apostrophe. Still I don't think you can call the other "elision", but anyway... even a grammar nazi like myself has had enough now

Chojin · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:23

Another one that doesn't work for me is "I've a ..." rather than "I have a ...".

FlyingPig · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:25

Dj_Jestar said:
You can blame the British empire for that

Nearly 3/4 of the globe's population interacted with English speaking tradesmen and so forth, so a lot of people learnt English.

And of course, because nearly 3/4 of the globe's population interacted with English speaking tradesmen, and thus learnt to speak English, we (the English) didn't have need to speak any forrin

*bulldogs*
*salutes*
*Union Flag flapping in background*
*"God Save The Queen" starts to play*
*tear of pride rolls down cheek*

Then again, you guys don't speak any other languages, poor sods.

Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre?

RoyMi6 · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:26

Chojin said:
Another one that doesn't work for me is "I've a ..." rather than "I have a ...".

Works for me fine:

"I've a brown dog" - not written in an essay but spoken it works.

(Scottish FYI)

LeJosh · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:27

That still sounds retarded Roy.

Elixir · 12 Oct 2011 at 16:29

RoyMi6 said:
"I've a brown dog" - not written in an essay but spoken it works.

(Scottish FYI)

Aye a ken but wit ye say win yer speakin isnae really the same hing eh?